- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I don't know the facts about who Holder defended beyond what I have read here, but I do believe there is an ethical difference between choosing to become a lawyer the bulk of whose time is spent defending corporations, and choosing to become, say, a public defender (who make up a large portion of those "defending" the prisoners in Guantanamo). I suppose corporations have some sort of right to defense in the way that people do (though I don't think such rights are properly comparable) but I think it matters in judging a person who they choose to systemically defend and for what reasons. Public defenders, in my experience, defend out of a deeply felt belief that, although most of their clients may in fact be guilty of their accused crime, their treatment by the state and the likely degree of punishment is deeply unjust. Corporate lawyers I've known present no such moral justifications for their jobs, and usually do it just as part of a self-interested career. Few seem to believe that their clients are systematically prevented from getting a fair shake, regardless of what they have or haven't done. So in short, yes, I believe that there is a difference between choosing to spend one's life defending the under-class versus defending the over-class (such as corporations). But again, this isn't to say that the corporations might not in some sense deserve representation -- only that I don't have to like the people who choose, of all the things they could do with their law degrees, to spend their time on that. And nor is it to say that Holder made such a choice himself: for all I know, defending an evil corporation like Chiquita (and they really are pretty damn bad) was a one-off -- in which case, it's (mostly) ok.
